It’s another wild night chez Adams. As you might have figured out, I’m reassessing the whole efforts thing. I just banged out the chart above, as a way of showing the main permutations of efforts provisions. It’s a wild world of efforts. The chart doesn’t even cover it all, as you can have the modifier following efforts, as in efforts in … Read More
In this post yesterday I offered a limited critique of Chief Justice Strine’s dissent in Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. But one benefit of having a traditionalist contract-drafting notion rear its head periodically is that it forces me to keep refining my arguments. So in this post I explain in greater detail why it makes no sense to suggest that … Read More
Well, here’s something I didn’t expect: that I would wade in again on efforts, and in a back-to-basics way. On 23 March, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its opinion in Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (here). I won’t mention the broader details of the opinion. Instead, I’ll limit myself to what it and some related discussion have to say … Read More
Behold the following: The Sponsor hereby represents and warrants to BNY Mellon, which representations and warranties shall be deemed to be continuing, that: … I’ve seen this provision in different kinds of contracts, notably lending agreements. But I haven’t found any commentary about it. And I don’t believe it’s mainstream in M&A. Here’s how a related concept is usually expressed in M&A … Read More
Can’t we do better than et seq.? Here’s the Black’s Law Dictionary definition: et seq. (et sek) abbr [Latin et sequens “and the following one,” et sequentes (masc.) “and the following ones,” or et sequentia (neuter) “and the following ones”] (18c) And those (pages or sections) that follow <11 USCA §§ 101 et seq.>. And here’s an example from EDGAR: … Read More
The phrase among other things is usually benign, because usually it’s used to refer to something treated fully elsewhere—for example, in the same contract (the first example below) or in another contract (the example under it). Attached as Appendix A is an amended and restated Schedule B to the Subadvisory Agreement setting forth, among other things, the fee that the … Read More
I’m in the process of revisiting the concept of “misapplied” terms of art, which I discuss in MSCD chapter 1. The idea is that it doesn’t make sense to use doctrinal terms of art in contracts if simpler terminology is available. Today’s candidate for a misapplied term of art is the noun subrogation (and the verb subrogate). Here’s the Black’s Law … Read More
Today I revisited my 2016 post on reasonable and hypallage (here). In trying to make sense of that post, I revisited hypallage generally. Be warned: that’s what this post is about. In the Ben Zimmer item (here) I link to in the previous post, here’s how Ben describes hypallage: Hypallage (pronounced hy-PAL-uh-jee, rhyming with analogy) is a literary device that … Read More
Yesterday I saw this article on JDSupra. It’s entitled Merger and Purchase Agreements Governed by Maryland Law: “Best Efforts”, and it’s by Scott Wilson of the law firm Miles & Stockbridge. Consider the following extract: The most commonly utilized terms are “best efforts,” “reasonable best efforts” and “commercially reasonable efforts.” Practitioners understand these terms on a sliding scale with “best efforts” … Read More
Today I encountered use of ought in the Uniform Commercial Code, so that sent me scurrying to EDGAR, where I found 143 contracts filed in the past year that use ought. Garner’s Modern English Usage says the following about ought: Ought should be reserved for expressions of necessity, duty, or obligation; should, the slightly weaker but more usual word, especially … Read More
